DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: True Left vs Right
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16379--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: guest90 Date: November 11, 2022, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They owe us for… polluting their air and water and soil with
unnecessary inventions that only serve to make life even more
complex than it already is. Stupid bitch.
#Post#: 16438--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: rp Date: November 15, 2022, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9xaKa1WAM
#Post#: 16630--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 23, 2022, 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img]
HTML https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FiP8k-WaMAICGZU?format=png&name=small[/img]
Homework: which bloodlines need to be eliminated first?
#Post#: 16643--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: guest90 Date: November 24, 2022, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m pretty sure this subhuman is referring to Rome as “the
ancient west,” as it is typical of their kind to try and claim
the Romans as their own, despite their Turanian ancestors being
Rome’s greatest enemies (also please show me where Romans called
themselves “Westerners”).
But compare Roman technology, such as cement and aqueducts,
which made life easier and simpler for the populace, to western
machinery, such as planes, nuclear power, and plastic, which
have only made life more complex and dangerous for everyone. I
don’t have to fear Roman cement in my drinking water, but I do
have to worry about micro-plastics, chemical fertilisers and
pesticides.
#Post#: 16763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: 90sRetroFan Date: November 30, 2022, 8:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Our enemy Duchesne returns again:
HTML https://www.eurocanadians.ca/2022/11/the-50-greatest-philosophers-are-all-european-men.html
Sure, if you judge by Western standards.
[quote]It could be that the most important historical question
that points to a monumental contrast between the West and the
Rest is the following: why did Western civilization produce all
the greatest philosophers in history? [/quote]
Because Westerners have been the ones judging which philosophers
are the greatest, as Duchesne himself then proceeds to
explicitly tell us (while failing to see any problem with this):
[quote]This conviction that philosophy was almost entirely a
Western phenomenon was held by historians of philosophy from
every school of thought until recently. The neo-Kantian Wilhelm
Windelband, believing that philosophy concerns the “independent
and self-conscious work of intelligence which seeks knowledge
methodically for its own sake,” began his two volume classic, A
History of Philosophy, published in 1892, with the ancient
Greeks, without mentioning a single non-Western philosopher.
Windelband believed that “the history of philosophy is the
process in which European humanity has embodies in scientific
conceptions its views of the world and its judgments of life”
(p. 9). The historicist and existentialist Julián Marías, in his
Historia de la Filosofía (1941), which went through countless
editions, and was translated into English, also starts with the
Pre-Socratics and ends with José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)
without a word about a non-Western thinker
...
The liberal minded Will Durant, in his popular book, The Story
of Philosophy: The Lives and Opinions of the Greater
Philosophers (1926), profiles only Western philosophers. In a
“Preface to the Second Edition”, written in 1962, we see the
first inklings of multiculturalism, however, as Durant faults
his book for leaving out “Chinese and Hindu philosophy”, even
though he adds that Chinese philosophers were “averse to
epistemology” or to inquiries into the nature of knowledge and
how it is acquired. The analytical-empiricist philosopher
Bertrand Russell, in his widely known book, History of Western
Philosophy (1945), which was cited as one of the books that won
him the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950, took it for granted
that the history of philosophy should be about Western
philosophers. Philosophy began with the Pre-Socratics because it
is only then that we see speculations on the nature of things
with “appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether
that of tradition or that of revelation”. Russell offered a
chapter on “Mohammedan Culture and Philosophy” only to the
extent that Muslims wrote commentaries on Aristotle. The
Catholic philosopher, Frederick Copleston, in his magisterial
work, A History of Philosophy, published in nine volumes between
1946 and 1975, began with Greece and stayed in Europe, including
a volume on Russian philosophy, right to the end.
This Western-centric attitude was unquestioned until recent
times. It was the typical perspective of texts for university
students. Konstantin Kolenda’s Philosophy’s Journey: A
Historical Introduction (1974) says that it was the ancient
Greeks who “were able to think through to new, unorthodox
questions.” “Mythical accounts about gods and about the world…do
not necessarily concern themselves with the question of truth.
Myth is something that is told and need not call for critical
scrutiny, examination, justification. The idea of possibly
discovering the true nature of reality behind the multiplicity
of appearances and behind conflicting opinions is a most
original and revolutionary idea in the intellectual history of
man” (p. 5). It is not only that the ancient Greeks posed
critical questions — “Is there some substance or some basic
stuff out of which everything is made?” – but that their answers
consisted of “reasoned” arguments. Not a single Eastern
philosopher is included in Kolenda’s book.
In 1991, Norman Melchert published The Great Conversation: A
Historical Introduction to Philosophy, in which he tells
students that the value of philosophy is that it teaches you “to
believe for good reasons”. Opinions are as good as the reasons
behind them. “That’s what philosophy is”: teaching students how
to think “clearly and rationally”. Every philosopher in
Melchert’s “great conversation” is Western.
...
The Great Philosophers, a 1987 BBC television series presented
by Bryan Magee, which was made available in a book of the same
name, only discusses Western philosophers in its 15 episodes,
beginning with Socrates and ending with Bertrand Russell and
Ludwig Wittgenstein.[/quote]
See? Duchesne, however, does not see; instead, he genuinely
thinks the above is evidence supporting his claim:
[quote]This is a remarkable statistical fact. It needs to be
emphasized this is not a comparison of the West against three or
two other civilizations, but a competition of the West versus
the Rest. Aside from the Muslim, Chinese, and perhaps the Indian
world, no other culture in the world, not the Mayas, not the
Aztecs, not the Khmer Rouge Cambodians, not the Tibetans, not
the Aksum civilization, not the Egyptians, not the Assyrians,
not the Bantus, not the Babylonians, not the Japanese, not the
Koreans, NO other culture in the world, produced any great
philosopher. Let it be repeated: this is not a list based on
arbitrary, idiosyncratic, purely personal, or politicized
assumptions. It is based on solid, widely recognized histories
of philosophies.[/quote]
Widely recognized by which civilization? Duh!
[quote] Europeans 80.5 = 80.5%
Jews 9.5 = 9.5%
Chinese 7 = 7%
Muslims 3 = 3%
If we add Jews to the European list, insofar as they were all
educated in Europe, then the Western score is 90 = 90%.[/quote]
I agree with adding Jews to the "European" list, of course.
[quote]The fact that Indian philosophy can’t be divorced from
India’s major religious traditions, or was never conceived as a
separate intellectual pursuit, explains why I could not include
Indian philosophers
...
Sue Hamilton, an expert in Indian philosophy, acknowledges that
“what Westerners call religion and philosophy are combined in
India, and that its philosophies are correctly referred to as
soteriologies, or ‘system of salvation’”. The Indian
philosophical tradition holds that “understanding reality has a
profound effect on one’s destiny”. The attempt “to understand
the nature of reality” is a “spiritual undertaking, an activity
associated with a religious tradition”. The aim of Indian
philosophy was to escape from consciousness, to obliterate the
thinking self; and every philosopher, or every philosophical
outlook, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, were
preoccupied with the notion of reincarnation, the process of
birth and rebirth, the transmigration of souls and the “release”
of the soul from that process.[/quote]
So systems of salvation are excluded(!) from what Westerners
consider to be philosophy? That surely says more about Western
values than about the quality of Indian philosophers!
[quote]Nevertheless, Sue Hamilton, as is generally the case with
Westerners who study Eastern thought, misleads readers with her
view that Western philosophy “tends to be concerned with
detailed and technical questions about kinds of logic and
linguistic analysis” – whereas Indian philosophy is a “spiritual
undertaking” about “big metaphysical questions” concerning the
meaning of life and how to live one’s life in order to have an
effect on one’s destiny.[/quote]
I would put it even more strongly than Hamilton does. Western
philosophy views language as fundamentally empowering, as
opposed to viewing language as fundamentally restrictive (and
only something we are forced to use for communication due to
decay of empathy (itself partially caused by reliance on
language)). This is also why Western philosophers tend to be
more anthropocentric: in worshipping language, it trivially
follows that Western philosophers have a higher opinion of
language-users (ie. humans) compared to non-language-users (ie.
non-humans). (As I have pointed out in the past, reincarnation
was a mainstream belief of ancient Greeks, yet amazingly (to
non-Western eyes) the idea that humans could reincarnate as
non-humans and vice versa (the most trivially obvious thing in
non-Western imagination) did not occur as a possibility to them:
that is how ludicrously anthropocentric they are!) Similarly,
Western philosophers tend to be dismissive of Original Nobility,
because, as language-worshippers, they find it hard to accept
the superiority of a pre-linguistic human (ie. infant):
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/childcare-issues/msg15015/#msg15015
Continuing:
[quote]The fact is that Chinese philosophers were accustomed to
express themselves in the form of aphorisms, apothegms, or
allusions, and illustrations. The whole book of Lao-tzu consists
of aphorisms, and most of the chapters of the Chuang-tzu are
full of allusions and illustrations. This is very obvious. But
even in writings such as those of Mencius and Hsun Tzu, when
compared with the philosophical writings of the West, there are
still too many aphorisms, allusions, and illustrations.[/quote]
Why do you think this was the case FFS? Answer: they were at
least trying to partially overcome the limitations of language
by not using language to crudely approximate an idea, but using
language merely to describe a scenario that hopefully will cause
the idea to independently arise in the listener's/reader's mind!
[quote]it was Aristotle who did the most in ancient times to
delineate what constitutes a proper philosophical statement
about what there is and what constitutes a valid form of
reasoning about why something is so. He invented formal logic, a
precise language about reality, about what things can be said to
be substances and the reasons why they are as they are. He
showed that true philosophical statements are composed of basic
categories — substance, quantity, quality, relationship, place,
time — which express the various ways in which being is, and
that these statements can be formulated to be subject-predicate
statements. This is just a little particle of what this
incredible philosopher did.[/quote]
The following then comes as no surprise:
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_ethics#The_highest_good
[quote]Aristotle claims that a human's highest functioning must
include reasoning, being good at what sets humans apart from
everything else.[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
Back to enemy article:
[quote]Europeans took seriously Zeno’s paradoxes, for they seem
to suggest that one could reach a logically unacceptable
conclusion on the basis of sound reasoning from apparently sound
premises. They wondered whether these paradoxes revealed
deficiencies in the way we reason, calling for improvements in
our reasoning powers, a better system of logic and a more
precise usage of language.[/quote]
But did they ever suspect that reliance on language itself might
be the problem? No, because the Western approach to problems
caused by language is always more language, never an attempt to
discard language.
[quote]the Western mind was able to develop methodologies to
understand texts from different eras and different cultures,
because this is the only culture that learned how to draw
ontological distinctions between mind and matter, individual and
society, the three parts of the soul, and so on, in the course
of which this mind eventually developed particular
sciences—physics, chemistry, biology, botany, sociology,
economics, etc.—to explain different aspects of reality, and
newly emerging properties, while also realizing that the concept
of “man in general” is limited by historically determinate
factors. The prior ability of ancient Greek philosophers to
discover the distinctiveness of the faculty of the mind, the
distinction between physis (nature) and nomos (law or custom)
nurtured a transcendental outlook that allowed Western thinker
to stand aback from their context and view other cultural
contexts in their own terms. Therefore, it is not enough to say
that all knowledge is historically situated, the expression of a
particular people. If all knowledge is contextual, then all
knowledge claims are equally valid. We have to ask why the West
developed all the theories about how knowledge is context-bound,
and why the West produced all the modern sciences.[/quote]
Since when was philosophy supposed to be judged by its utility
to science/knowledge? But Duchesne probably doesn't even notice
his own screwup that perfectly illustrates the problem with
Westerners like himself:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/truth-knowledge/
So long as Western philosophy continues to predominate in
prestige, it will be almost impossible to get off the track of:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/
which is what we are desperately trying to do.
#Post#: 16791--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 1, 2022, 11:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
More Duchesne:
HTML https://www.thepostil.com/the-continuous-creativity-of-western-visual-arts/
[quote]Anyone who approaches the history of visual arts from an
impartial perspective—concerned only with aesthetics,
creativity, and originality—can’t help but realize, as I am
about to explain in this article, that Western art stands on a
league of its own. Making this claim goes against the relentless
promotion of immigrant multiculturalism across the West today,
which necessarily comes along with the notion that the art of
the diverse peoples of the world is equally good.[/quote]
They are not equally good (a relativist belief). They are
better:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/the-superiority-of-pre-colonial-aesthetics/
Western visual arts are indeed in a league of their own - in
ugliness:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-is-ugly-48/
Continuing:
[quote]a most peculiar characteristic of Western art: its
exhibition of a continuous proliferation of highly original
artists with new artistic styles, new ways of projecting images
on a flat surface, new conceptions of light, new standards of
excellence, and new conceptions about nature and man—in contrast
to a nonwestern world where aesthetic norms barely changed or
where artists were invariably inclined to follow an established
convention without breaking new aesthetic paths.[/quote]
Change for the sake of novelty is frivolous at best,
attention-seeking at worst, and antithetical to good art either
way.
Of course Duchesne disagrees, as does his fellow Westerners on
whom he relies as the judges of which art is better, which of
course they will do using Western standards:
[quote]H.W. Janson’s History of Art, first published in 1962,
with a sixteenth printing in 1971, which I am using, and
numerous new editions thereafter, is an encyclopedic treatment
of the history of art, with millions of copies sold in fifteen
languages. Janson came from a Lutheran family of Baltic German
stock. His criterion for choice of great art is “ORIGINALITY.”
“Uniqueness, novelty, freshness” are the “yardstick of artistic
greatness.”
...
This criterion underpins Janson’s magisterial book. This book
has three opening chapters on “The Art of Prehistoric Man,”
“Egyptian Art,” and “The Ancient Near East.” The rest of the
book, with the exception of a short chapter on “Islamic Art” and
a short “Postscript” with the title “The Meeting of East and
West,” is entirely about Western art. These traditions really
interest him insofar as they “contributed to the growth of the
Western artistic tradition” (p. 569). He ignored China, Japan,
and India until the end because they were not a “vital source of
inspiration for Western art” except in contemporary times. New
styles of art, new techniques and schools, was a uniquely
Western phenomenon.[/quote]
I agree that Western art involves more novelty. I merely
interpret this as evidence of Western inferiority.
[quote]Arnold Hauser (1892-1978) was a Hungarian Marxist with
Jewish ancestry, an admirer of bourgeois norms and
sensibilities, writing at a time when students were educated
without diversity and equity mandates. The Social History of
Art, first published in 1951, the product of thirty years of
labor, opens with eight short chapters on prehistoric, Egyptian,
and Mesopotamian art, covering less than fifty pages in a
four-volume book that is close to 1000 pages long. This
rightfully valued book argues that art became more realistic and
naturalistic as Europe became less aristocratic and
hierarchical, more bourgeois, urbane and cosmopolitan. A
“naturalistic style” actually prevailed through to the end of
the Paleolithic Age in the way animals were depicted in a
realistic way, although the art was concerned as well with the
performance of magical rituals. This naturalistic attitude,
which was “open to the full range of experience,” gave way in
the Neolithic Age to a “narrowly geometric stylization” in which
the “artist tended to shut himself off from the wealth of
empirical reality.”[/quote]
The Jew dislikes Aryan art. No surprises here! The above
information also fits with our model of Aryan diffusion:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/mythical-world/yandi-vs-huangdi-myth-confirmed/msg2140/#msg2140
[quote]According to William Watson, while the Northern School
contains "the painters who favour clear, emphatic structure in
their compositions, with the use of explicit perspective
devices", the Southern School "cultivate a more intimate style
of landscape bathed in cloud and mist, in which pleasing
calligraphic forms tend to take the place of conventions
established for the representation of rocks, trees, etc. The
painter of the Southern School was interested in distant
effects, but his colleague of the Northern School paid more
attention to the devices of composition which achieve the
illusion of recession, and at the same time more attentive to
close realism of detail. ... some artists hover between the
two".[3] A more philosophical distinction is that the Southern
School painters "were thought to have sought the inner realities
and expressed their own lofty natures" while the Northern
"painted only the outward appearance of things, the worldly and
decorative".[4][/quote]
Back to enemy article:
[quote]In Egyptian art, “the person of the artist himself
disappeared almost entirely behind his work.” Painters and
sculptors remained “anonymous”[/quote]
Only Westerners, being Achilleans, find this frightening. To
everyone else, it is highly respectable.
[quote]Western art is persistently creative, never rigid and
traditionalist. New artistic epochs emerge (Mannerism, Baroque,
Rococo, Classicism, Romanticism, Naturalism, Impressionism) in
opposition to prevailing conventions with increasing
acceleration from the Renaissance onwards, led by artists who
purposely wanted to break away from the prejudices of their age,
innovate and experiment, and demonstrate thereby their own
artistic genius.[/quote]
This is why we call them Homo Hubris. Art should not be about
showboating.
[quote]The Story of Art, originally published in 1950, is
currently in its 16th edition. Wikipedia says that “over seven
million copies” of this book “have been sold, making it the
best-selling art book of all time.” It “has been translated into
approximately 30 languages.” Unlike Hauser, who follows a
Marxist conception of progress in the arts, Gombrich, born in
Vienna into an assimilated family of Jewish origin, carefully
rejects the idea of progress, believing that “each gain or
progress in one direction entails a loss in another, and that
this subjective progress, in spite of its importance, does not
correspond to an objective increase in artistic value” (p.
3).[/quote]
Jewish anti-progressivism summarized: "Progress means we can't
have it all! We want it all!"
[quote]The Story of Art is a history of art from the beginnings
to the present. Gombrich estimates that three chapters, out of
twenty five, are enough to cover the achievements of primitive
and nonwestern art. His reason for doing this is simple:
Western Europe always differed profoundly from the East. In the
East [artistic] styles lasted for thousands of years, and there
seemed no reason why they should ever change. The West never
knew this immobility. It was always restless, groping for new
solutions and new ideas (p. 131).
Among European painters there was an “urge to be different,” do
something new, find a new way to enhance the aesthetic effect of
the work, convey something different about the world, new life
experiences along with permanent aspects of human nature. Using
originality and restless creativity as his central criterion,
Gombrich could not but pay far less attention to an Eastern
artistic tradition that remained continuously the same through
the centuries.[/quote]
Again, I agree with Gombrich's observations. I merely interpret
them as evidence of Western inferiority. (That Gombrich
interprets them as evidence of Western superiority is evidence
that Jews are Westerners.)
[quote]He writes about Egypt’s “art of eternity.”
No one wanted anything different, no one asked him to be
“original.” On the contrary, he was probably considered the best
artist who could make his statues most like the admired
monuments of the past. So it happened that in the course of
three thousand years or more Egyptian art changed very
little…[/quote]
Why should anyone want anything different? It is much more
respectable to want to live outside of time than within it.
(This is why I prefer to re-watch old movies/TV shows that I
watched as a child than watch new ones.)
[quote]About Chinese and Japanese art, he observes:
[i]The standards of painting remained very high…but art became
more and more like a graceful and elaborate game which has lost
much of its interest as so many of its moves are known.[/quote]
Gombrich has the same attitude as Musk (and the opposite of
mine) towards what is boring:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/progressive-yahwism/msg13288/#msg13288
[quote]The unspoken assumption underlying his claim is that a
thing has to be new in order to not be boring. This is a
progressive assumption, which we disagree with. I find that many
new things are boring despite being new, whereas many old things
are not boring despite being old. This is because I am an
absolutist. Whatever is boring will always continue to be
boring, and whatever is not boring will never become boring.
Whether or not something is boring to me is determined by the
quality of the thing itself, and unrelated to how familiar I am
with it. Musk, in contrast, lacks such perception. To him, what
is boring is anything that he has become too familiar with.
Thus someone like Musk can never be satisfied, because
everything that exists at any point in time will become boring
to him eventually, whereupon he will desire even more
innovation, over and over again without end. In contrast,
someone like me can be satisfied forever simply by successfully
finding the quality I seek.
In short, Musk worships Yahweh whereas I worship God.[/quote]
Gombrich, being a Jew, obviously worships Yahweh. Duh!
Back to enemy article:
[quote]Clark’s book, as he says in the Foreword, “is made up of
the scripts of a series of television programmes given in the
spring of 1969.” The series, produced by the BBC under the same
name as the book’s title, consisted of thirteen programmes, each
fifty minutes long, singularly focused on European art from the
end of the Dark Ages to the early twentieth century.
...
Civilisation is a joy to read for its high minded learning and
its enthusiastic appreciation of the sublime originality of
Western art in its incessant striving for new forms of aesthetic
perfection. Other civilizations remained content with reenacting
the perfection they had achieved in the past. The West was
different:
The great, indeed the unique, merit of European Civilisation has
been that it has never ceased to develop and change. It has not
been based on a stationary perfection, but on ideas and
inspiration[/quote]
Which sounds more like what perfection is supposed to be: a)
something that the attainer will never again want to depart from
after attaining it; or b) something that the attainer feels the
need to move on from as soon as it is attained?
Oh, I forgot we are talking to Homo Hubris.
[quote]Much of Chinese “art,” it should be said, consisted of
bronze casting, ceramics, and jade carving. This “art” was
highly sophisticated in technique and decoration, but I hesitate
to call it art. It should be categorized as applied art, the
work of highly skilled craftsmen. As H.W. Janson writes,
“originality is what distinguishes art from craft.”[/quote]
Sincerity is what distinguishes art from showboating.
[quote]think about Leonardo da Vinci’s remark about the
indomitable desire of the “wretched pupil” to “surpass his
master.” This attitude is singularly European[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]a state of “permanent revolution” as artists “contested
with each other over who was the most “creative.” [/quote]
Do those who behave like this even deserve to be called artists?
#Post#: 16871--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: 90sRetroFan Date: December 4, 2022, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Our enemies explain how "whites" are the best at Yahwism:
HTML https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2022/12/02/flight-is-white-aviation-is-a-creation-of-the-pale-stale-nation/
[quote]
HTML https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/dawk.jpg
...
Dawkins pays graceful tribute to Hamilton and describes
Hamilton’s “mathematical theory” showing how “an animal (or
plant) that takes steps to send at least some of its offspring a
long way away will spread more of its genes, in the long run,
than a rival that drops all of its offspring right next door to
the parent.” (p. 206) This is true, Hamilton showed, “even if
‘right next door’ is (at present) the best place in the world
and ‘a long way away’ is on average worse.” That idea is only
one of what Dawkins rightly calls Hamilton’s “brilliant
contributions to Darwinian theory,” but it sheds light on the
central theme of the book: flight in all its forms. Flights of
Fancy is about the conquest of the air, whether accomplished by
birds, bats, bees or Blanchard’s balloons. Jean-Pierre Blanchard
(1753–1806) was a pioneering French inventor who made the “first
balloon crossing of the English Channel” in 1785. En route, he
and his American companion “were obliged to jettison everything
in their beautiful boat-shaped car, including even their own
clothes.” (p. 179)
...
one thing is very clear from the history of mankind’s conquest
of the air. Flight is White and aviation is a creation of the
stale pale nation. In other words, it was European Whites who
invented or perfected all the amazing ways in which human beings
can imitate birds and take to the air. The airplane, the
helicopter, the rocket, the balloon, the glider, the jet-pack
and more — all of these are the product of White ingenuity and
effort. And also of White audacity. Many White men have died or
been horribly injured in the quest to conquer the air, just as
many White men have died or been horribly injured in the quest
to conquer mountains like Everest and the Eiger.
The Whiteness of Flight
In essence, flight and mountaineering are the same quest — a
Faustian quest to ascend, overcome and go beyond the boundaries
imposed on mankind by nature.[/quote]
Wrong! Flight is a quest to follow nature beyond the boundaries
imposed on it by gravity, as you yourself quoted Hamilton
explaining earlier in your own article! Gravity is not nature.
Natural selection is nature.
True defiance of nature would be stopping Hamiltonism (which is
an aspect of Yahwism). Which is what we are trying to do. If
"whites" are the most Hamiltonist among humans, they must be the
first to be prohibited from reproducing if anti-Hamiltonism is
to succeed, preferably before Hamiltonism reaches the extent of
enabling settlement of outer space.
[quote]There was hubris in the early attempts on the air and
Nemesis often punished that hubris. But now flight is one of the
safest forms of transport and human beings can cross the
Atlantic with less risk than they cross a city-street. We owe
all of that to White men like Jean-Pierre Blanchard and the
Wright Brothers.
...
Human races are not all equal and Whites have achieved
exceptional things. Aviation is one soaring example: it’s a true
creation of the pale stale nation.
...
From the Montgolfier Brothers to the Moon-landings and beyond,
Flight has been White.
And so has the understanding of flight in all its forms, as
Dawkins’ book describes. White scientists have elucidated the
physics of flight and explained how flight has evolved again and
again among animals and plants. It’s a fascinating story
excellently told in Flights of Fancy by the words of Richard
Dawkins and the pictures of Jana Lenzová. That’s why I enjoyed
the book so much. And I couldn’t help contrasting Flights of
Fancy with another book that has recently made a strong
impression on me. The other book is very different in content
and style.
...
Black British Lives Matter is full of similar proclamations of
Black suffering and White villainy. It’s a self-righteous and
self-obsessed book. That’s part of why it’s also an ugly book.
Another part of its ugliness is the poor quality of its prose
and its reasoning. That’s why I found it such a contrast with
Flights of Fancy, which is a beautiful book, well-written,
well-reasoned, and well-illustrated, and most certainly not
self-obsessed. As I noted above, Whites like Richard Dawkins are
interested in birds, bats, bees, balloons and lots of other
things starting with “B.” Blacks, by contrast, are interested in
only one thing starting with “B,” namely, Blacks. In other
words, Whites are exotropic, directed towards what’s outside
themselves. Blacks are endotropic, directed towards themselves
and their own concerns. That’s why Whites have been inventors,
innovators and explorers of the Universe. And why Blacks have
been none of those things.[/quote]
Examples of exotropic "whites" interested in birds:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg12823/?topicseen#msg12823
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg12311/?topicseen#msg12311
#Post#: 16893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: guest19 Date: December 5, 2022, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]Whites are exotropic, directed towards what’s outside
themselves. [/quote]
Probably why there such effective karen's
#Post#: 16897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Homo Hubris
By: antihellenistic Date: December 5, 2022, 10:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]That’s why Whites have been inventors, innovators and
explorers of the Universe. And why Blacks have been none of
those things.[/quote]
And Hitler, muslims, and other people of "non-white" communities
are same like "blacks", they have been none of those things but
being victim of "Whites"'s material inventions and universal
explorations.
What are Hitler invention to this world? Only destroying the
entire Europe and Western Civilization, but that's a good thing.
We the victim of Western [s]Civilization[/s] Barbarism never
regret to praise Hitler.
Sometime destroying things is a good thing you know.
Islamic Khulafaur Rashidun and Ottoman Caliphate also not
inventing anything but destroying anything in Europe, the land
and people whom considered by the world of the "sources of
invention and modernity", but to us the victim of colonialism
that's an achievement, not a barbarism. We suffering,
complaining, and try to seek revenge because you the Europeans
not want to care to our plea. The only solution today is total
eradication of Western Civilization and it's creatures. I'm even
hesitate to consider them as "human"
#Post#: 16951--------------------------------------------------
Re: True Left Breakthrough: Hate
By: guest19 Date: December 8, 2022, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's way too many homo hubris on this planet, and that comes
as no surprise considering homo hubris is the type of human that
jewish/western civilizations produce
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page